Another example of how same-sex marriage won’t affect anyone, #2

In any given debate over same-sex marriage, invariably same-sex marriage advocates will pose the following question: “How will allowing gay people to marry affect you or your marriage?”

If we are being asked how any particular same-sex couple setting up house and having their relationship called a “marriage” will personally affect me, the answer is probably, “Not much.” But this question is too narrow, and misses the real significance of same-sex marriage because it focuses too much on the individual and not enough on wider social implications. The real question is how changing marriage law to say there is no difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples will affect society as a whole.

I’ve addressed this question elsewhere, so I won’t belabor it again here. Just let me say that if you think the government can legally declare no difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples, and there won’t be personal ramifications for those who do not share that view, you need to rethink the function and force of the law. The government cannot affirm that same-sex unions are marriages, and declare that to avoid discrimination, they must be treated as equal to man-woman marriages in every respect, and yet at the same time permit religious organizations and individual citizens to act in any way that suggests these relationships are not marriages or not equal to man-woman marriages. As Michael Medved wrote four years ago, “If gay marriage is a fundamental human and constitutional ‘right,’ then how could faith-based groups or religious individuals legally discriminate against the exercise of that right?”

Indeed, the implications are not only felt on the level of society as a whole, but even on an individual level. Ask the Catholic adoption agencies in D.C. and Boston who were forced to close their doors because the Catholic Church would not adopt children out to same-sex couples, and had to choose between their moral convictions and providing adoption services.[1] Another case in point. Just last week the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a Christian photographer, Elane Huguenin, violated the law by refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. This has happened before. What’s new in this case is the rationale of the court. Justice Richard C. Bosson, in his “specially concurring” portion of the ruling, made it clear that the law trumps religious liberty and conscience. He wrote that those in the world of commerce who hold a moral conviction against same-sex marriage “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.” He went on to say:

At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

In today’s legal world, violating one’s conscience by participating in actions that you deem morally unacceptable is “the price of citizenship.” Either comply, or find another career. We are told we must “leave space for other Americans who believe something different” than we do. Where, Justice Bosson, is the space being left for those who believing something different than the State? There is none. This is what happens when same-sex marriage is enshrined into law. Tolerance for those who disapprove is out the window.

When the law says there is no difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, and when the law says the only reason for distinguishing the two is personal animus and bigotry, you better bet your bottom dollar that you will be affected by it. While I do not think same-sex marriage is comparable to civil rights, that is how it is being sold in the marketplace, and how it is being cashed out in the legal system. That means the consequences will be the same for both views. Just as we would be considered persona non grata before the law and within society if we held that all races are not equal, we will be considered persona non grata before the law and within society for holding that same-sex relationships are not equal to man-woman relationships. Again, Medved got it right:

It’s now a well-established point of law that theological doctrine can’t protect institutions or individuals if they discriminate on the basis of race. … If gay identity is equivalent to racial identity (a key contention of the gay marriage movement), logic requires that unequal treatment based on sexual orientation should receive no more sanction than unequal treatment based on race.

Indeed, this is exactly what the majority in the NM case concluded: “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA [New Mexico Human Rights Act] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

This decision in New Mexico reveals the thinking of the legal experts, and it has grave implications for all of us who do not agree with the liberal consensus. Are you prepared for the social, legal, and perhaps financial consequences of holding to your convictions?

[1]I do understand that the board of Catholic Charities in Boston had previously adopted 13 children out to same-sex couples over a 15 year period, and wanted to continue doing so despite the Catholic Church’s position. They only stopped doing so because the Catholic Church forbade them (see http://www.sunjournal.com/news/columns-analysis/2012/10/21/peter-meade-truth-about-adoptions-has-been-distort/1267212). Nonetheless, the reason they had to close their doors is because the law came into conflict with the moral convictions of the Catholic Church (even if those operating the actual adoption agency in Boston did not share the Church’s convictions).

Rate this:

Share:

Like this:

Related

Jason I think you are missing an important, fundamental aspect of governance.

You look at marriage as though it is a state between two trees and you have the right to decide which trees can unite in that ceremony as though you invented marriage and own the copyright and therefore you feel you have a right to discriminate among the trees which can participate of not.

The Government on the other hand looks at marriage like the sun that shines on the forest, it is for every tree in the forest not only certain trees so that all the trees it encompasses are part of that common “Forest” of humanity.

Sunshine is for all people in humanity;
Rain falls on the good and bad in humanity alike but
all humanity still has the right to drink the water.

The creature does not determine the cards he is dealt with at birth so why do you suppose the cards you are dealt have the right to discriminate against the cards that others are dealt? You do not even own the ground you are born on. It is better to be thankful for your own life and happiness than to deny life and happiness that others, seek too.

Individuals and groups are myopic in their approach and the reason why the world remains so divisive.

Think about it for a minute.

Two men and two women

One man and one woman is okay

the other man and the other woman is okay so all four have the right of marriage.

Why then do you think that those four trees can have the right to marry as long as the four are playing by your rules of engagement but in a moment of musical chairs, the four same people end up with different partners; again as long as they end up with each member of apparent, opposite gender, you say that’s okay too.

But then in another round of musical chairs the four same trees end up with members of the same apparent gender two men and two women. Now in this case you would deny the right of marriage to the same trees who only a few musical chairs ago had the right of marriage.

But the marriage did not change, nor did the right to marriage change; nor did the four original people(trees) change; the only thing that changed was your perception and desire to move the goal posts and that is why government cannot allow you to make the rules about a universal institution in order to practice discrimination as you have practiced discrimination among your groups and sects and organizations since the year dot, ostracizing those with different perceptions and ideas solely for you to practice discriminatory policies against those who behaved differently. I think that is obvious with the thousands of different sects and denominations and tribes with different doctrines, dogma, outlooks, beliefs
WHY?

Because that’s how religion operates and that’s how you make your gods operate. Your gods operate on discrimination and you the creatures make the rules for the discrimination of your Gods. So you give the attributes of discrimination to your Gods in order to condemn homosexuals; you do it for the rules you make up in your play area for blasphemy, for what you can eat, what you can’t eat, how to pray, when to pray, how many times a day to pray, when to go to church, what to read, what not to read, who to marry, when to marry, how to sacrifice animals, how many time you wipe the cup to get it clean; a litany of rules and regulations, for heaven and hell and earth and limbo and purgatory.

Leo, the case against marriage need not have any religious connection whatsoever. While I acknowledge that for many, their negative view of same-sex marriage is informed entirely by their religion and morals (and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, because the law is a moral enterprise at heart, and laws should be informed by morality), you know that the case I and others make against same-sex marriage does not depend on a religious view or a moral perspective. So to the extent that you try to make this a religion vs. non-religion issue, you are being disingenuous and ignoring the argument.

I think I have the right to decide? You have missed our argument. Our argument is that marriage is a natural institution based on human nature and human biology. As such, it is no more meaningful to speak of same-sex marriage as it is to speak of male hysterectomies. Our argument is that marriage is not something that can be defined by a culture; it can only be recognized by the culture for what it is. The problem with same-sex marriage is that it is trying to call something a marriage which is, by nature, not a marriage. If you don’t get that, you don’t get the debate at all.

And don’t feed me this nonsense that the government is for marriage for all, or marriage equality. They are not. They are just as “discriminatory” as you claim we are. They do not permit anybody and any form of marriage that anyone so desires. They do not permit temporary marriages, or group marriages, or multiple simultaneous marriages, or marriages to close relatives, etc. Do you suggest that the government call “marriage” whatever combination of people (or things) that people desire? If so, then “marriage” becomes meaningless. Unless marriage has an essence to it, then it ceases to have any real and enduring meaning. Indeed, unless marriage has an essence to it, we could not even know what it is that other people are supposedly entitled to! There will always be boundaries in marriage law as to who can and who cannot participate. The only question is what that boundary is, and what the rational basis for it is. The natural marriage view supplies the rationale for why marriage is limited to two people, why the marital relationship is to be monogamous, and why it is to endure for life. The new view of marriage, in which marriage is just a social invention that can be defined and redefined to suit society’s desires, has no consistent rationale for these aspects of marriage. Indeed, given the principles that underly the argument for SSM, there is no principled reason to deny marriage to anyone who wants it, regardless of how bizarre it may seem (such as those who desire to marry themselves, or marry their pet).

“Our argument is that marriage is a natural institution based on human nature and human biology.”

Except it’s not. If it was, sterile heterosexual people wouldn’t be allowed to be married.

“If so, then “marriage” becomes meaningless.”

It is. At least, to other people. Your marriage (assuming you are) is meaningless to me. It only matters to the people involved in the marriage, the people that love and care for those people, and the government institution giving them benefits. To anyone else, it’s a meaningless thing.

“regardless of how bizarre it may seem (such as those who desire to marry themselves, or marry their pet).”

And again you remove yourself from logical arguing by comparing sane American citizens to pets.

If marriage would not have been delegated as the only criterion for visiting loved ones in a hospital emergency for example or would have included rights of inheritance and over a thousand other benefits that depend on marital status, would we still be having this debate? The answer in all its sheer simplicity is Yes. Why? Because of opposition? by whom or what? Religion and religious groups primarily. To try and obscure this fact by saying you have to take religion off the table is not valid because marriage has everything to do with religion and if it wasn’t for religious opposition, opposition would be slim to none.

Marriage is for men and women and all gay people are men and women.

Marriage, I have said before, is an institution whose demise is at hand and so it should be. If there would have been no discriminatory practices but you practiced it, defended it and now that your right to discriminate is being denied you’re whining about it.

Marriage for life used to be for life because the woman had no rights in a marriage, could not work except in the house, could not have custody of her children, had no financial security could not even vote; in my own lifetime a woman was not allowed to enter bars or taverns, then it changed and was allowed in those establishments but ONLY if in the company of a male chaperone just like in Saudi Arabia’s Muslim society today.

So it has been a long time since stoneagism but its culture, tradition and influence is still felt around the world. And you claim it is not a religious driven opposition is laughable.

IN Alberta marriage is already being put out to pasture as they have change their laws to reflect the new attitude of total inclusion called Cohabitation Agreement.

Not a scientist says Jason has removed himself from logical arguing because he compared sane American citizens to pets. Except he did no such thing. He said that government already regulates who can & cannot get married and that if they did not then someone could marry their pet.—-Not a scientist: You have removed your illogical article from serious consideration.

Leo says “Marriage is for men & women..”. With this kind of insight Im sure we could soon solve all of mankinds problems very quickly. Does he mean that marriage is for “All” men & women, or “CERTAIN” men & certain women.???? Or by saying “men & women” is he trying to crypticly rephrase and justify the supposed marriage between men & men, and women & women ? Then he says …”all gay people are men & women”, which is false taken literally or technically. Now there are far more than these single examples which are “illogical” (quoting not a scientist) and “laughable” (quoting leo) about the comments of the critics. If they were as critical of their own comments as they are about Jason’s then I wonder how long their criticisms would be ? Hmmmmm.

“Our argument is that marriage is a natural institution based on human nature and human biology.”

NotAScientist

“Except it’s not. If it was, sterile heterosexual people wouldn’t be allowed to be married.”

NotAScientist, your comment assumes something that is not always, or even necessarily ever true.

A married couple (man and woman) not having the ability to procreate doesn’t mean that they still don’t have the proper biological anatomy for the act that brings about procreation in all others who have the ability. To put it as discretely as I can, the man’s anatomy is uniquely designed and suited for the woman’s anatomy, and except for secondary functions (i.e. discharge of liquid waste), are obviously for and only for the use of the other.

Such a position, which is accurate, completely justifies Jason’s comment, while refuting yours.

relegates marriage as not human nature based on biological function but rather simply to the ACTof sexuality which supports my argument that marriage WAS INDEED merely about controlling the sexual act. Despite the fact that sexuality is not controllable, religion did however attempt to control marriage by calling the unmarried woman a harlot and her children out of wedlock, bastards; and, the man a fornicator full of lust.

Aaron tried to justify Jason’s position but his argument to justify Jason’s comment actually failed miserably because Aaron argues for the mere ACT and that is not Jason’s position; Jason’s position is that marriage is based on human nature and biological function of which the sexual ACT is a consequence of such but not the ACT itself as both sonnybardin and myself claim that IS the ONLY reason for the institution of marriage and since the act is so commonplace now, marriage and the guilt associated with being called names is render useless and meaningless and it is passé.

Jason says:

“Our argument is that marriage is a natural institution based on human nature and human biology.”

Same apparent sex operates on human nature and biological function as all sexual activity operates, what do you think same apparent sex relationships operate under if not human nature and biological function?

Furthermore I disagree with Jason’s assertion that marriage is not defined by culture; marriage IS and WAS defined by culture, religious culture since the year dot. That’s why Muslims can marry children, close relatives, have up to four wives and while four women may claim to be individually monogamous having only one husband, the man cannot claim that but the culture allows for it, the Muslim culture also allows for sex with pets but if found out they must kill the pet but cannot sell the meat to his fellow villagers but he may sell the meat in the next village. Is that religious culture or religious insanity?

In addition, According to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He would have been kept busy for 3 and half years servicing his Kingship. Many of God’s finest men in the Bible were Polygamists – King David-And on another occasion, when David took more wives and concubines, our Heavenly Father does not condemn his action. Notice in this context the Lord was with him.
2Sam. 5:10-13 And David went on and became great, and YAHWEH, the God of Hosts was with him. And David took more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he had come from Hebron. And there were still more sons and daughters born to David.

How many wives and concubines did David have? Some suggest 8 wives and 10 concubines making a total of 18, some say he had 22 wives. The point is, David had many wives and concubines BEFORE he committed adultery with his neighbor’s wife.

NotAScientist said of Jason comment:

“and that if they(government) did not(regulate marriage) then someone could marry their pet.”

NotAScientist said that by Jason’s statement he was comparing sane American citizens to pets. That WAS Jason’s comparison by speculative imagination suggesting that “…no principled reason…to deny marriage….regardless how bizarre…. such as…. the desire to…marry their pets.” if the Government did not regulate marriage but the Government did not say that or imply that, Jason inferred that with his hypothetical comparison.

I agree with NotAScientist.

sonnybardin denied the obvious meaning of Jason’s comment and deliberately misrepresented Jason’s meaning trying to mimic NotAScientist’s rebuttal to Jason by asserting that Jason removed himself from logical argument.

sonnybardin further supports my conclusion of his mimic attempt by saying of NotAScientist:

“you have removed your illogical article from serious consideration.”

sonnybardin has seriously erred in his counter punch as it fell flat by the lame mimic.

While it’s obvious that homosexual partners cannot procreate, and so, may, on the surface, appear to be in the same boat as a heterosexual couple who are sterile, it’s not exactly the same, since, to again reiterate, the man and woman both have compatible anatomy for the sex act that would otherwise eventually bring about procreation.

Two men or two women engaged in such a homosexual act not only cannot procreate, but also do not have the compatible anatomy for the natural sex act, which is coital.

This is the argument from nature and biology. It’s not about the ability to create children.

“Aaron, I’m afraid relegates marriage as not human nature based on biological function but rather simply to the ACTof sexuality…”

Not so. I merely isolated and addressed a HIGHLY specific element of NotAScientist’s post. To assume I relegate all of marriage to the “ACT of sexuality” is assumptive assertion not based in reality.

“…marriage WAS INDEED merely about controlling the sexual act.”

Do you really think the first humans (since you deny the literal reality of Adam and Eve) sat around in a counsel somewhere and decided that sex acts must be controlled through a monogamous covenantal relationship, or that some form of primative animist religion really had anything to do with it? Do you really think the average homo erectus of whatever variety and/or Neaderthal man made decisions on whom they would and not breed with according to the as of yet non-existent Abrahamic religions on the world, the ones you so clearly despise?

Throughout the history of civilization, marriage was never about keeping someone’s pants on, since it’s obvious that from the earliest days, people had and will have sex with each other pretty much indiscriminately, regardless of any laws or institutions barring such behavior.

Rather, marriage, or rather, the lifelong commitment between two opposite sex partners is the natural outgrowth of the nature and biology of the human race. Yes physical, but also emotional and even spiritual attachment occurs between humans, along with attraction, and it is normal, even expected that two people, normally a man and a woman, would be draw to each other for these reasons, and want to consummate the relationship, and see it endure until death. Why?

For the furthering of the human race, for the establishment and stabilizing of human society, for legal and political pacts, to bind families and tribes together, to bring peace and harmony to otherwise disastrous conflicts, and etc. And often, just for the personal enjoyment and fulfillment that such a relationship brings to the people involved.

That is why marriage exists. It’s not about some non-existent “war on fornication and perversion”. Nor as a futile means to control who does and who doesn’t have the right to get their groove on.

As a proof, the states in the US which are not allowing for homosexuals to marry do not have laws barring homosexual acts between adults. Two men or two women, if consenting adults, are allowed and privileged by law to have whatever form of sex acts they want. Can they marry? No, not in such states. So how in the world does the idea of marriage confine or restrict, i.e. control their ability to have sex?

Answer: It doesn’t. Rather, the proponents who want to grant homosexual people the right to marry are wanting to legitimize their homosexuality and homosex acts, and all the other emotional and spiritual attachments they have and feel, by being allowed to call their relationship a marriage and have it sanctified by the state. That’s the issue. it’s not about who can legally, without state or religious control, have sex with whom.

“it’s not about who can legally, without state or religious control, have sex with whom.”

That is NOT the way it is today as I said, but that’s the WAY it was as documented in the “Holy Books”.

And when do you think the woman had any say about sexuality, partners from life, spiritual and emotional satisfaction decision of child bearing? OMG you just have to look at Afghanistan to see how men treat women; India, Saudi. Do you think there is some kind of peer equality in making women disguise themselves in a burlap sack? Honour killings? Genital mutilation? Do you think these societies are something recently developed and are not a backward reflection of western society? I was taught in school by nuns wearing penguin burkas with only their face and hands showing.

Equality is a very new phenomenon between the genders so the idea that a man and a woman were drawn to each other in this loving bond kind of way was nothing of the kind in general societies. Just look at some of the Ads from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s to see where the woman fit into a man’s world.

But that touches only some points about marriage in general between the man and woman; what we are talking about now are marital rights of humans to participate as equals, spiritually, emotional, physically, cares, riches, pleasures and benefits that marital relationships confer on marriage partners.

It took eons for society to accept common law relationships and Government played a leading role in that, secular government I hasten to add.

What is your problem that you refuse to accept that a man with a male anatomy and a female brain gender and vice versa should be denied and discriminated against because of that anomaly. You may be fortunate to have a male brain and a male anatomy but nature gets things mixed up sometime. It is perfectly natural from where I sit to understand perfectly why a female brain is attracted to a male body and a male brain is attracted to a female body so there is absolutely nothing stopping me from understanding that a mixed gender in a person cause a same apparent sex mix-up. You base everything on the body and exclude the mind which is rather surprising that you seem to speak about the mind, spiritually, emotionally but when it comes to sexual orientation you are fixated on the body only and only speak of the brain aspects when you want to use it to make your body view arguments.

You live in a myopic world and goodness knows there are so many mixed-up people born. The asylums are full of them, the orphanages are full, the hospitals are full of them, disabled people are so common now that thousands if not millions of people have careers based on helping and caring for the afflicted of society, people cannot hear, cannot see, people that see sound in colour, people who can’t walk, can’t function to feed themselves but how many years have passed since commercial establishments have doors for the handicapped so they can have fair access? Not many!

The government took a leading role there to, as they must and automatic doors are now commonplace in our urban areas and government buildings can accommodate wheel chair access. We don’t despise people today as we did a few decades ago let alone a century ago.

We help people with medicine to control seizures and epilepsy panic; we don’t go to the church for an exorcism ritual but religions still operate exorcism schools in this day and age.

Now just for instance, if you had been born with a male brain gender identity but in gestation you ended up with an apparent female body gender and as you grew up and became adolescent and suddenly you fell in love with a beautiful woman as your brain gender dictated. And you tried to figure out what was wrong with you OMG what a dilemma! Would you commit suicide because bullies made fun of you, called you names, poked fun at you at every opportunity? if you wanted to change your apparent female body gender to suit your spiritual, emotional and your mind’s brain state how would you feel if your society ostracized you and claimed you were disable or retarded or an abomination because of your difference without anything wrong with your brain or body otherwise.

Well I can imagine that and it’s not a pretty thing to imagine and yet that is just how so many people in all cultures are treating their fellow men and women. It is only a year that gays in the military are allowed to serve openly without getting booted out of their careers, fired for being who they were born to be.

And I am not going to allow that to happen without speaking up for the downtrodden in my world. Like it or hate it, I am defending the underdog and as far as I am concerned that is exactly what Jesus did when he was here two thousand years ago, even though he got crucified for doing it.

You basically believe that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect, or to use your word, anomaly in the brain?

You think homosexuals are victims of nature getting things mixed up sometimes?

You think homosexuals are generally speaking in the same boat as people with disabilities, thus saying or at least implying that homosexuals have a disability, even that homosexuality itself is a disability (on account of nature getting mixed up and giving them an anomaly, in this case, mental gender confusion)?

And that’s why a homosexual man is attracted to another man (or the same for a woman), because deep down, he’s not really a man, and cannot (on account of the anomaly) identify himself as a man? He’s actually a woman masquerading in the physical guise of a man, i.e. he’s a busted/broken human who would otherwise be straight had not nature gotten mixed up and given him such an anomaly?

Am I getting you?

Because if so, I recommend you take your ideas and share them at a gay pride parade or event, and see how long it takes you to get ripped to shreds, verbally or otherwise.

By making the above claims, you are basically denying the impetus for the homosexual agenda, which is, “we are normal, there is nothing wrong with us, with this behavior, we were born this way, and what we do, who we are attracted to, and etc., etc. is normal”, i.e. not against nature or because nature got mixed up and we’re just a bunch of sad anomalies.

But you come along and equate homosexuality with what amount’s to a genetic birth defect, just one of nature’s little goofs in life, which for all intents and purposes, amounts to nothing more than a MISTAKE, a cosmic joke played on all the unfortunate homosexuals who had no choice in the matter.

Take such a position and say the same to someone with cystic fibrosis, or quadriplegic spastic cerebral palsy. Tell them, “Sorry, but you’re just one of nature’s little mistakes. See, nature gets mixed up sometimes and causes weird anomalies to people during gestation. It can’t be helped. It’s not your fault, of course, but hey, we can’t fight nature or the randomness with which it sometimes screws up, but don’t worry, I will pity you, since I’m here to help you, you poor downtrodden soul”.

Now apply that to every homosexual you claim to defend.

Don’t see you how terrible such an ideology is? It is rude, condescending, hurtful, and demeaning to humanity as a whole.

You are correct in your understanding of how I see the gender anomaly of the LBGT community and of course it may seem unseemly to the gay person because in reality they are “normal” in every respect and maybe they do not want to identity their condition as a disability or an anomaly of nature but it by no means is the universal opinion of the gay community, “tearing someone to verbal shreds because you identify a gene or finally find the biological cause” of an anomaly, in that community.

Many gays also believe that they are carrying with them the mix-up and are opting for hormonal treatment to correct the body defect and so medical marvels can change the body’s sexual appearance to match the brain gender identity. Sex changes are quite a normal thing now as more and more people opt for the procedures.

Take a recent and still current case, famous simply because of its unrelated newsworthiness, is the case of Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public through Assange’s Wikileaks. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing identified herself as female and said she had felt female since childhood. SHE (the Gender Brain) introduced herself as Chelsea Manning and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy.

A victim of cystic fibrosis is by no stretch of the imagination acknowledgment that they are deficient or a mentally challenged person is just a poor quirk of nature although they are but modern medicine is reversing nature’s anomalies all the time as research develops new technics to perform once impossible “miracles” of medicine.

You are trying to make me sound horrible and trying to demean me because I am speaking the truth about natural anomalies but it is not my fault anymore than it is your fault. Anymore than it was the fault of thalidomide babies born with missing limbs or the soldier who gets his legs and arms blown off but are helped to live “normally” with artificial limbs like the “Blade Runner”. A thalidomide baby believes s/he is born normal because they know no other way but it is not a scourge or a bubonic plague on society

My wife’s career for the past 20 years has been as a health care worker taking care of the disabled, the mentally challenged and people with all sorts of disabilities, the ones they use to lock away in the insane asylums; neither she nor myself, consider them in the denigrating phrases and terms of “just one of nature’s little goofs in life”, a “MISTAKE”, “just a bunch of sad anomalies”.

Don’t you see how pitiable you actually are in your scapegoating by describing them in such a derogatory manner?

Actually, for saying those things about the physically and mentally challenged people my wife has worked all her life to help fit in, make them feel adequate and respect the inner pains and joys they also experience leads me to use a common gutter language term to describe your condition; it’s call “dickheadism” and reflects the stupidity in the treasure of your heart because the words you utter are a conduit inside the real you, the invisible you and all you are doing by using slanderous terms is revealing your inner and true identity. Your own burden as a freak of nature.

I think you owe an apology to every ill person, disabled and downtrodden person that you reject. It’s because of people like you that the world needs people like me to champion their cause instead of rejecting them out of hand with the hurtful kind of language you use against them to describe a condition with terms that better suit your own personal, inner worldview.

I am glad I am not you. I am glad that I was never influenced by bigots of self righteousness. I perceive no difference between you and the Pharisees and Scribes in the way they rejected members of society by trying to break the crutches they used to walk with.

It concerns me that homosexuals want to adopt children, purely from a philosophical perspective. (I am not religious.)

“It makes me wonder whether there’s a certain part of the brain that relates to affection, love, and sexual desire. Perhaps in homosexuals, in adults who engage in incest, and in pedophiles, the walls between those emotions have broken down (potentially because they too were molested as children and never learned to develop those individual emotions properly).

— To anyone who defends gay “marriage” and the ability of “married” homosexuals to adopt children and to try to raise a family, I question whether you should really trust people with children when you know that they don’t understand the difference between sex and love. –”

With all due respect I submit that you are trying to make thread connections where commonality is more a product of your imagination than in reality. Of course it is the fallacy of people to do that so that if you can link someone’s behaviour to the behaviour that others may have that people find offensive you try to establish a link in order to hate all three equally; people made guilty by an association that you, yourself create. This is not only wrong to do but there is something intrinsically evil about doing it.

I would offer the opinion that there is a huge difference between supporting gay marriage and supporting the right of adoption. Although you only mentioned a link of homosexuality to incest and pedophilia I infer that you do not have the same observation or make the same link between the feminine version: lesbianism. Most men actually do that; I suppose the sexual activity of a man copulating anally seems more repulsive to most people than women who already have an orifice acceptable.

The difference between lust and love is really very slight, mostly perception but your association between sex and love is comparing apples and orangutans; that’s like asking someone if they walk to work or do they take a lunch; or, is it hotter down south than it is in the summer/colder up north than it is in the winter; or even more bizarre, is it farther to New York than it is by plane?

I am trying to be friendly here but comparing sex and love is somewhat nonsensical. Philosophically comparing the physical with the emotional or the spiritual, is a non sequitur.

For the record, since it seems my comments were misunderstood (or purposefully misconstrued):

I do not believe any human, no matter the disability, is a mistake. I believe all humans are created in the image of God, are worthy of love, respect, and peaceable treatment by their fellow human.

I do not believe that someone born with a disability is an anomaly of nature, that is, they just happened to receive the short straw when it came to their DNA, and etc (for more on the subject, begin here: Exodus 4:11).

Nor do I think a person with a disability is deficient. As a human being, they are fully so, and lack nothing to their humanity. Do they have a disability? Yes, but we all, every one of us, are in some way, disabled. Physically and mentally, I simply cannot do certain things that other people can do.

Furthermore, the science is simply not in on Leo’s claims. There has been no affirmed conclusion on the matter. Some believe the brain in homosexuals shows THE EFFECTS of their homosexual lifestyle, and not THE CAUSE!

Further still, many in the LGBT community are worried that if such a conclusion were to be decided upon by the scientific world, any child found to have such an anomaly, as Leo calls it, would be treated, operated on, or even aborted in vitro by the parents who couldn’t live with the stigma of having a “gay” child, similar to those parents who choose to have their unborn killed by a doctor because it was discovered the child would likely be born will some severe disability.

Hopefully I’ve declared and clarified sufficiently for any who might be reading. I take my bow from an otherwise fruitless, un-edifying debate.

Marriage propagates the species in an organized manner. God gave us this ability to create – as one of several other features built into man that reflect the “image” of God, the ultimate Creator.

To take that union and generalize it across other forms of “marriage” effectively eliminates the said purpose. A man can “marry” a donkey too, strictly speaking. But the original concept derives from the Torah, a word that means, in Hebrew, a book of instruction, and therein the association of male with female defines the union whereas a homosexual union between males is extremely discouraged, and therefore juxtaposed to bestiality, as an outright abomination.

That people enjoy this aversion is irrelevant, inasmuch as the concept is concerned. This is why, of course, the promoters of homosexuality, or “marriage” between males, are aggressively anti-religious.

This is also why the sly tactic of calling this union by the euphemism “gay” is promoted. Because the last thing these people are are gay. How can they be, unless they labor to destroy the culture they were born into, to turn it into a Sodomite society.

Some things are quite clear, black on white. One of these is that homosexuality is according to the Bible – the Torah – an abomination. And if you think about it, you’ll see for good reason, because children become ogled at, and can be abused, and if children can be abused, certainly the generation or the culture is a sick culture. Just look at Muslim culture where this phenomenon is rampant, where not only children are abused, but women are trashed, and people can be disposed of on a whim.

The homosexual who reads this may jump and want to kill, but his real fight ought to be with himself. He has the ability to change, he has the ability to procreate and create a bond with a woman and children. If Torah says it’s an abomination, it means that innately there never was such a built-in desire. It grew out of a societal incident and then became reinforced. Yes there are those who care nothing for such deeply ingrained desires. Well so be it. But these are usually not the fighters. The fighters have a sinister desire that goes beyond just spilling over with lust for another man. These fighters are your non-gays.

The only thing that makes sense from your commentary is that you are a religious adherent who doesn’t want to accept that the only way to propagate the species is sexual union; yes, between a man and a woman both of whom must be capable of reproducing. It is not marriage. Marriage is what religion called it for their control of sexuality.

You are a bigot of course and I’m sure you are prepared to admit that readily as does Putin and a lot of his Russian Administration even if some of those administrators are themselves gay. You are on a par with the Russians in your stance against a normal, natural development in the human experience.

Regardless of whether or not same, apparent sex couples marry it does not change the situation that they are still gay and in your eyes an abomination, not your theory of course but the theory from stone men who invented their religion, their gods and their rules of engagement before they invented the wheel and before they discovered how to control fire. And anyone who gets their morals from any “Holy Book” may as well get their personality from a microchip because you are very robotic in your agreement from stoneagism when sacrificing children was an acceptable practice and not killing your children was an abomination!

True freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes.

Most people who speak of Jesus the loudest, know him the least 🙂

I don’t care if you follow the Book of Stupidities:
“The so called Holy Books are basic histories of cultural ritualisms of man since pre stone age when knowledge was rare. Imaginative gods were created to account for lack of knowledge, when belief ruled the minds of the supernatural who were wannabees of the gods they created in order to garner respect from their peers.”
What part of “KNOW” do you not understand stupidity to be, in the above re-quote regarding the Koran, Bible, Torah etc?

The religious mind, set in the ways of the Holy Books of Stupidity; being so hooked on the Drug of Absolute Certainty cannot fathom anything beyond the supernatural abyss of Fairytales. The mighty gulf embedded in the minds of children is a chasm impossible to be relieved from, impossible to crawl out from, up from, away from, because the brain neurons are routed to spark in an obscene way only humans are capable of inflicting on each other and fixed ’til death, I’m afraid.

Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT) to disrupt the memory so that neuron paths are rebooted, may be the only hope for you to recover the brain you were born with before it was twisted into a pathetic dimension of egocentric abortion that religion is world famous for. ‘God’, ‘divine judgment’ and ‘damnation’ are religious inventions: religion creates and perfects the fear of the fictitious inventions, then declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it.

Religion is all the more reproachable when the hapless indoctrinated become its only fanatical defenders. Woe to the clerics who mold minions, proxies and proselytes, for theirs is a life of destitution in selfish egotism. The only freedom they will never know is when their ashes, consumed by decomposing death, blow hither and thither, void of direction, on swirling winds like murmuration clouds, now here, vaporous, gone, now there. Substance no longer its own. Piteous religious recompense.

Indeed,demons of religion cringe at the logic of the Universal Mind.Their comfort zone of distorted reality dizzied by reason.All human beings are born atheists;no human was ever born religious.Now one would think if god was such a universal force,we humans would be born with the essence of the God in our very being but no,it takes man to do that,to twist all sense of joy,happiness,very life itself from humans,like oranges squeezed,leaving only a pulpy mass of religious entanglement.

I and Jesus as atheists do not respect any religion but as atheists would save the indoctrinated from their fate and may take shock therapy to convulse them back into their human form, the true form of the Universe, not the twisted mind form that religious fanatics with more fiction than Steven Spielberg in their ego brains invented. Imagine, fabricating miracle water in ketchup packages to cure everything from a ruptured bank account to a ruptured appendix! Thus is religious insanity.

Here is a little crystal clarity for you and your references to stoneage’s discriminatory laws and practices:

May I remind you and every like minded individual on this thread that the Law was made for Man and not Man for the Law; therefore, Man is Master of the Law you think you need to cite to make a point that on its face is meaningless.

We The People make the Laws; We The People change the Laws; We The People enhance the Laws; We The People augment the Laws; We The People abolish the Laws and We The People usurp the Laws as We the People see fit to do from time to time.

You cite ancient texts that to you and other diehard religionists are immutable but Jesus quite clearly changed the way the true Law was practiced and I suspect he did it with everyman in mind not just your cliche of well heeled clergy whom he condemned in the strongest terms(Matt 23’s famous “Woe to you….”) the way they practiced and adhered to the Mosaic law of revenge, hatred and condemnation.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the most perverted systems that ever shone on man. Jefferson
In religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, we find that, which has been reverenced as God, not ‘godlike’ but pitiable, absurd, harmful, not merely an error but a crime against life.

As to what Jesus contributed? Jesus gave the presence of his peace by his life, not through his death; the clergy has it all backward by claiming Jesus gave the world life through his death, uh uh. Couldn’t be farther from the truth. Jesus denigrated the Mosaic Law of Revenge, eye for and eye and so on which peeved the clergy because he testified to their incredible religious insanity. Instead of the Revenge, Jesus taught them the principles of love, forgiveness, charity and compassion for all mankind especially the poor and the downtrodden whom the Scribes and Pharisees detested rejecting Jesus for befriending tax collectors and sinners, the lame and disabled, calling Jesus a gluttonous drunk.

Furthermore, Jesus brought hope to the poor and exposed the evil of Church Dogma. Please don’t ever think Jesus was anything more than an ordinary man with extraordinary common sense who put himself in harms way to show that the masses were worthy: to have their wounds bandaged, the disabled helped, the hungry fed, the homeless clothed; giving them hope that the clergy hitherto had nothing but loathing for, as your comments about the LGBT Community reiterates. Do you think your condemnation is in line with Jesus? I do not think it is any where close to the Humanity of Jesus. What Jesus read at the synagogue from the OT started his mission as follows:

According to custom, Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the scriptures from the book of the prophet Isaiah that was handed to him. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted,to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind (blinded by clergy and religious insanity) to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

He closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. He said, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

He went further and denounced the clergy’s supernaturalism with two examples regarding the famine and a cleansed leper after which all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath and rose up and thrust him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill ………to throw him down head first over the cliff but he gave them the slip and was on his way.

That was the beginning of the mission to help the poor and bring back the only God there is, the “Father” within you that is the spirit guide and light inside every human being, not the supernatural magical hocus pocus gods created by the clergy for pence and power. His mission was to open the eyes of the people to the reality that Truth was the authority and not the Authority (of the clergy) was truth.

From that day forth, the Jews plotted to silence Jesus because he testified to the evil of their ways and for the next three years Jesus dodged and darted about mingling with the oppressed masses, helping them, feeding them (by natural means, I hasten to add not by picking bread and fish out of thin air) and showing them what compassion and forgiveness and love of the Law was supposed to be like; in the meanwhile, dodging the religious wingnuts who sought to imprison him, throw him over cliffs, stone him, whip him, beat him, mock him and crucify him.

Jesus said to the regular people: “The (religious)world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.”

No different than religious wingnuts do today to atheists and gays alike, especially in Muslim countries where executions of those groups is commonplace. Supernatural god myth followers do it in words, online. Most religious regurgitating minions, proxies and proselytes think that Jesus was a Christian. So Lolable. If Jesus was around today he would be the first to tell the hypocrite clergy to pack their robes and vacate the seats they purport to sanctify and never take the name of Jesus in vain again for their own aggrandizement! And he would tell them to take people like you with them!

I
If thou canst bear Strong meat of simple truth If thou durst my words compare With what thou thinkest in my soul’s
free youth, Then take this fact unto thy soul,— God dwells in thee. It is no metaphor nor parable, It is unknown to thousands, and to thee; Yet there is God.
II
He is in thy world, But thy world knows him not. He is the mighty Heart From which life’s varied pulses part. Clouded and shrouded there doth sit The Infinite Embosomed in a man; And thou art stranger to thy guest And know’st not what thou doth invest. The clouds that veil his life within Are thy thick woven webs of sin, Which his glory struggling through Darkens to thine evil hue.
III
Then bear thyself, O man! Up to the scale and compass of thy guest; Soul of thy soul. Be great as doth beseem The ambassador who bears The royal presence where he goes.
IV
Give up to thy soul— Let it have its way— It is, I tell thee, God himself, The selfsame One that rules the Whole, Tho’ he speaks thro’ thee with a stifled
voice, And looks through thee, shorn of his beams. But if thou listen to his voice, If thou obey the royal thought, It will grow clearer to thine ear, More glorious to thine eye. The clouds will burst that veil him now And thou shalt see the Lord.
V
Therefore be great, Not proud,—–too great to be proud. Let not thine eyes rove, Peep not in corners; let thine eyes Look straight before thee, as befits The simplicity of Power. And in thy closet carry state; Filled with light, walk therein; And, as a king Would do no treason to his own empire, So do not thou to thine.
VI
This is the reason why thou dost recognize Things now first revealed, Because in thee resides The Spirit that lives in all;
And thou canst learn the laws of nature Because its author is latent in thy breast.
VII
Therefore, O happy youth, Happy if thou dost know and love this
truth, Thou art unto thyself a law, And since the soul of things is in thee, Thou needest nothing out of thee. The law, the gospel, and the Providence, Heaven, Hell, the Judgement, and the
stores Immeasurable of Truth and Good, All these thou must find Within thy single mind, Or never find.
VIII
Thou art the law; The gospel has no revelation Of peace and hope until there is response From the deep chambers of thy mind
thereto,— The rest is straw. It can reveal no truth unknown before. The Providence Thou art thyself that doth dispense Wealth to thy work, want to thy sloth, Glory to goodness, to neglect, the moth. Thou sow’st the wind, the whirlwind
reapest, Thou payest the wages Of thy own work, through all ages. The almighty energy within Crowneth virtue, curseth sin. Virtue sees by its own light; Stumbleth sin in self-made night.
IX
Who approves thee doing right? God in thee. Who condemns thee doing wrong? God in thee.
Who punishes thine evil deed? God in thee. What is thine evil meed? Thy worse mind, with error blind And more prone to evil
That is, the greater hiding of the God within:
The loss of peace The terrible displeasure of this inmate And next the consequence More faintly as more distant wro’t Upon our outward fortunes Which decay with vice With Virtue rise.
X
The selfsame God By the same law Makes the souls of angels glad And the souls of devils sad See There is nothing else but God Where e’er I look All things hasten back to him Light is but his shadow dim.
XI
Shall I ask wealth or power of God, who gave
An image of himself to be my soul? As well might swilling ocean ask a
wave, Or the starred firmament a dying
coal,— For that which is in me lives in the whole.

Sure, you think MAN is the supreme mind and nothing can surpass it. You therefore disbelieve in God although all evidence points to a world created with organization.

You call my thoughts “stone-aged” because you’re fool enough to believe we came from apes and there was a stone-age. Even though, as you believe, humans then should have at least produced artifacts from, say, 10,000 years ago, but of course there’s no such artifact. Once in a while YOUR favorite newspaper, the NYT, has a page showing a so-called relic of the past. Bunk.
—————–
Jewish law, as YOU understand it, is rubbish because you rely on Gentile sources. For example, “an eye for an eye” does NOT mean pulling out an eye, it means paying the worth of an eye.
—————–
Someone said something about “religion wanting to control sex” or some such stupid concept. The whole concept of “religion” is also not understood by this community who reads here. In fact, there ought not be ANY religion in the world.

Older generations were wiser and the fools now coming out of college, one foot out of childhood, having been taught by professors financed by people who want to destroy the society, “discover” that these bizarre marriages are really worthy something. The only thing they’re good for is making promoting irresponsibility, pedophilia, bestiality, sadism, killing of babies, …. in short, a nauseous society that’s worse less than worthless.

Ridding the world of religion would necessarily mean also ridding the world of religion’s mindset which is that death brings the rain, helps the garden, avoids the floods, brings freedom and prosperity; no! death never does any of that. The re-education of humanity to a new way of looking at life; that is, life by life, not life by death. Religion has always been life by death and set the pattern for the world to justify whatever it does by religion’s mandate of death.

Yes I understand your logic about a higher being. I submit however that religion has conditioned human behavior to accept a higher being and that the sacrifice of life (death) is the ultimate necessary act for the gods and the ultimate for everything subsequent. Eliminating religion will be futile without the relearning of this mindset. Therefore re-educating the people that the Sanctity of Life is not to die for the cause; i.e., the sacrificial lamb, but LIFE that lives for the cause.

There is only one true way to stop squabbling over same-sex, opposite-sex marriage and one I fully agree with. Eliminate marriage altogether! Marriage,simply put, is an Institution whose time of demise has arrived; marriage is no longer relevant in secular society. Marriage is supported only by Religion (whose time to die has also arrived) and Businesses like DeBeers, Barbie Dolls, the Fashion Industry and Wedding Planners. Diamonds, Decor and Demons for Dollars.

How foolish to think religion promises to reward after death if adherents follow its path. The Bible many times say “Coose life!”, which means, makes the very most of life. You may think, however, death is your dead-end. Here you need to be corrected, at least if you seek meaningfulness out of life. If not, you and any animal differ very little. You were given a mind to use, and free choice to make good choices.

As for your other bit of nonsense, that marriage ought to be outdated, all you really want to say is you want free sex, when and where you please, with no responsibilitiies for your actions, because you worship at the altar of lust. Religious people serve at the altar of God; You prefer to waste your life away chasing one pleasure after another, until you drop dead.

Although I’m an atheist sometimes I prefer to think of myself as an Agnostic Fundamentalist; in other words, I don’t know. I don’t think anyone else knows either and anyone who disagrees with me is a filthy infidel swine. I’m sorry about that last bit but apparently those are the rules.

We’ve always speculated about what might lie beyond the stars, an activity not unlike theology only without all the cast iron certainties. And it’s fun to speculate about the big questions like the meaning of life because you never know somebody might actually come up with the answer; so far nobody has which would explain why there are so many expert opinions on this subject.

But there’s just something about human beings when it comes to the unknown, that we just don’t seem able to wonder about something and speculate creatively maybe have a bit of fun with it. No, not us. Instead we like to decide beyond all possible doubt, without a single shred of evidence.

We prefer to nail our colors to the mast before we know if there’s a ship attached to it. And often we’ll defend that position to the death. Now if that doesn’t qualify as serious mental illness, I would love to be briefed on what exactly does qualify and why.

I believe that the holy Land is the most inappropriate place named in human history.

And I believe that Jesus Christ, is dead and that he’s going to stay dead
just like everybody else but if by some miracle he did come back I believe he’d be embarrassed to be worshipped and ashamed of Christianity and disgusted by Christians. Because I believe that telling someone they’ll burn forever in hell is a form of psychological assault which should be outlawed like any other nasty little hate crime. Islam gives you 72 black eye virgins when you die so beware girls do not die a virgin because there are tons of jig saw puzzle terrorists up there just waiting to get you.

I believe the christian church itself is an evil carbuncle on the soul of humanity which is actively engaged in carrying out the express work of satan and if you’re offended by this that’s too bad because I also believe that nobody has the right not to be offended.

I believe that there’s more spirituality in a flower than in all the sanctimonious sky pilots that ever lived and that’s why I think there should be a link between church and state, all clergy should go to prison for fraud.

I believe that the only heaven you will ever know is right here on earth and if you can’t see that, you are not really looking.

I believe that faith based education is a social cancer which serves only to produce new generations of ignorant bigots and I believe that indoctrinating children with this repressive medieval rubbish should be vigorously prosecuted as child abuse.

I believe that religious belief itself is a form of mental illness which has outstayed its welcome on this planet and should now be relegated back to the realm of tarot cards and crystal balls where it belongs; if you have to worship something try worshiping something real like the planet that gave you life because it’s the best friend that you ever have and I believe it’s the only friend you will, ever have.
I live in a society where everyone’s beliefs are respected, as long as they believe in god. But, despite that there are still some good reasons to be an atheist. Personally, I like the hours, 24/7. I find they suit me very well indeed.

Now people often ask me about being an atheist and certain questions crop up all the time. For example, how can you know good from evil without religion to guide you? Well that’s just the point isn’t it, religion does guide me. Most of the things I see religion do, I think are evil. And I find that’s a pretty useful benchmark. If religion is involved I know evil won’t be too far away.

Another question is, isn’t atheism itself just another religion? Well, I suppose atheism is a religion in the same way that creationism is a science or Islam is a religion of peace; in other words, when language no longer really means anything. How can atheism be a religion? Who do we worship and who’s going to kill us if we don’t? Atheism doesn’t demand absolute unquestioning obedience or make threats about eternal damnation nor does it take childish offense over trifles. It doesn’t treat women like livestock.

In a way it’s a shame it’s not a religion because we might be able to get a few tax breaks out of it but no; atheism doesn’t get any special privileges, there are no schools teaching atheism to children as a belief system, paid for with public money. Nor does atheism require anyone to tithe part of their income to keep a few cynical con-men in luxury so you see it doesn’t begin to qualify as a religion worthy of the name.

Atheism is another word for reality, it means not seeing any need to apologize for being human. And to be happy to live the life we have and not just wish it away on some celestial wingnut that tells me heaven is right there waiting and all you’ve got to do, is DIE. That’s some price to pay for admission to a place that is likely to be full of clergymen, born again christians and suicide Muslim JigSaw puzzles which I reckon makes it a fate worse than death.

but surely people need religion to answer certain questions, well yes, questions like, How best can we stifle the human spirit? How much can we squeeze from the poor and gullible? and how many palaces can we live in at once? without blushing. These questions religion answers very well indeed. But unfortunately there are other questions to which it doesn’t have answers so it makes them up. This is where atheism comes in.

Atheism says, Hey you just made that up. And religion says no, this is what we call theology.

What’s the difference between a Doctor of Medicine and a Doctor of Theology? One prescribes drugs and the other may as well be on drugs. A theologian is somebody who is an expert in the unknowable. And has all the qualifications to prove it. pcondell

Religion is a lie and a threat to civilization. I think to engage dogma in debate is to legitimize it and to confer on it a status it simply doesn’t deserve. With its arrogant intrusiveness I think it long ago forfeited any claim it may have had to be treated with respect, too many liberties have already been taken. Religious dogma has been allowed to encroach on ground it has no right to occupy. And to claim authority where it has no authority to claim anything and I don’t think this is a matter for polite debate.

Especially when all you are going to get are the usual raft of glibly held but unexamined certainties hammered home like coffin nails at every opportunity because dogma is blind and deaf to anything that reason has to offer. Faith is non negotiable so where exactly is the debate?

You obey the rules of reason, religion ignores them and neutralizes your arguments even before you open your mouth. It’s not interested in anything you’ve got to say, it’s just waiting for you to draw breath so it can say, “..yes that’s all very well but you’ve still got to submit because it’s written, in this book…”

In the UK some Christian fanatics attempted to take out a prosecution for blasphemy against the producers of a popular comic opera. Now, the very idea of blasphemy, the idea that blasphemy even exists, as a concept, says it all for me about religion because what this really means is that some human beings have taken it upon themselves to feel insulted on God’s behalf. They don’t trust God to decide for himself whether to be insulted and deal with the matter in the appropriate way, on Judgment Day, No, no, they want to see punishment dished out right here on earth for there own satisfaction because it’s not really about God is it, it’s really about them and their personal mental illness. As it so often is when religion is exploited and misused by pig ignorant, narrow minded zealots. This is the same mentality that wants to compel us all to live in the past.

Now, the past has plenty to teach us but I don’t think it should be allowed to detain us against our will. Freedom from religion, from other peoples unprovable beliefs is our basic human right, at least I think it is. And some very determined people would like to take that right away from us and if we don’t do anything about that they’re going to be allowed to succeed.

Maybe you think the way to deal with this is to engage it in polite debate and to make all your little points and counter points and show us all what a clever dick you are. and that would be great fun for you. And the good news is you don’t even have to worry about someone like me damaging your cause because you haven’t got a cause. What you’ve got is a hobby.

Religion is out of control right now precisely because too many people have been too diplomatic for too long. If we’d had the gonads to do some straight talking years ago when we should have and put this insulting nonsense in it’s rightful place, with astrology and palmistry we wouldn’t even been talking about this now. We’d be doing something more useful with our time; what a waste of an enlightenment.

[…] who was sued for not providing a cake for a same-sex wedding, and a wedding photographer who lost a case in New Mexico’s Supreme Court because she would not photograph a same-sex wedding. Many who […]